From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: why does reiserfs list get so much spam? Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:11:09 +0200 Message-ID: <432B18CD.4000607@mch.one.pl> References: <432A9BFD.10700@mch.one.pl> <20050916104129.GA11025@kruemel> <432AA409.5070006@interia.pl> <432AAA38.9000102@mch.one.pl> <432B0DD0.80206@slaphack.com> <432B0FAC.4050905@mch.one.pl> <432B143B.8030808@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <432B143B.8030808@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: David Masover Cc: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Mierzwa?= , reiserfs-list@namesys.com David Masover schrieb: (...) >> And it's not really true that spamassassin is a manual-rule-based >> filter only. > > > Right, but the statistical/learning component of spamassassin is just > that -- a component, to be combined with razor/pyzor, manual rules, and > anything else they can think of. I think dspam does a much better job > at being a statistical filter, and that's all it does -- and that's all > it needs to. Some people have reported 99.997% accuracy from dspam, > beating humans. > > Anyway, the articles are about the principle of the thing. A > statistical filter will beat a manual one every time, because it's > faster and better at coming up with rules, and you don't need to update > your definitions to start filtering the new spam -- just train on two or > three mails, and you're done. yeah, but this starts to be a bit off-topic now. in case of reiser list it would be good if it had *any* filter that had even 50% accuracy, for a start :) -- Tomek